Back to Authors

Macdonald, John S.

Mayo Clinic

Northwestern University

Citations 2

Impact of Number of Nodes Retrieved on Outcome in Patients With Rectal Cancer
Tepper, Joel E. , Niedzwiecki, Donna , Hollis, Donna, Compton, Carolyn C. , Benson, Al B. , Cummings, Bernard, Gunderson, Leonard L., Macdonald, John S., O’Connell, Michael J. , Mayer, Robert J. , Niedzwiecki, Donna

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 157-163

10.1200/jco.2001.19.1.157 Get It

PURPOSE: We postulated that the pathologic evaluation of the lymph nodes of surgical specimens from patients with rectal cancer can have a substantial impact on time to relapse and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from 1,664 patients with T3, T4, or node-positive rectal cancer treated in a national intergroup trial of adjuvant therapy with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Associations between the number of lymph nodes found by the pathologist in the surgical specimen and the time to relapse and survival outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: Patients were divided into groups by nodal status and the corresponding quartiles of numbers of nodes examined. The number of nodes examined was significantly associated with time to relapse and survival among patients who were node-negative. For the first through fourth quartiles, the 5-year relapse rates were 0.37, 0.34, 0.26, and 0.19 (P = .003), and the 5-year survival rates were 0.68, 0.73, 0.72, and 0.82 (P = .02). No significant differences were found by quartiles among patients determined to be node-positive. We propose that observed differences are primarily related to the incorrect determination of nodal status in node-negative patients. Approximately 14 nodes need to be studied to define nodal status accurately. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the pathologic assessment of lymph nodes in surgical specimens is often inaccurate and that examining greater number of nodes increases the likelihood of proper staging. Some patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy are misclassified as node-negative due to incomplete sampling of lymph nodes.
Impact of T and N Stage and Treatment on Survival and Relapse in Adjuvant Rectal Cancer
Gunderson, Leonard L., Sargent, Daniel J. , Tepper, Joel E. , Begovič, Mirsada, Allmer, Cristine, Colangelo, Linda H., Smalley, Steven R., Haller, Daniel G. , Martenson, James A., Rich, Tyvin A. , Macdonald, John S., Willett, Christopher G. , Goldberg, Richard M. , Wolmark, Norman , O’Connell, Michael J. , Mayer, Robert J. , Ajani, Jaffer A. , Sargent, Daniel J

Journal of Clinical Oncology | April 6, 2004 | Volume: 22 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1785-1796

10.1200/jco.2004.08.173 Get It

Purpose To determine survival and relapse rates by T and N stage and treatment method in five randomized phase III North American rectal adjuvant studies. Patients and Methods Data were pooled from 3,791 eligible patients enrolled onto North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) 79-47-51, NCCTG 86-47-51, US Gastrointestinal Intergroup 0114, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) R01, and NSABP R02. Surgery alone (S) was the treatment arm in 179 patients. The remaining patients received adjuvant treatment as follows: irradiation (RT) alone (n = 281), RT + fluorouracil (FU) ± semustine bolus chemotherapy (CT; n = 779), RT + protracted venous infusion CT (n = 325), RT + FU ± leucovorin or levamisole bolus CT (n = 1,695), or CT alone (n = 532). Five-year follow-up was available in 94% of surviving patients, and 8-year follow-up, in 62%. Results Overall (OS) and disease-free survival were dependent on TN stage, NT stage, and treatment method. Even among N2 patients, T substage influenced 5-year OS (T1-2, 67%; T3, 44%; T4, 37%; P < .001). Three risk groups of patients were defined: (1) intermediate (T1-2/N1, T3/N0), (2) moderately high (T1-2/N2, T3/N1, T4/N0), and (3) high (T3/N2, T4/N1, T4/N2). For intermediate-risk patients, those receiving S plus CT had 5-year OS rates of 85% (T1-2/N1) and 84% (T3/N0), which was similar to results with S plus RT plus CT (T1-2/N1, 78% to 83%; T3/N0, 74% to 80%). For moderately high-risk lesions, 5-year OS ranged from 43% to 70% with S plus CT, and 44% to 80% with S plus RT plus CT. For high-risk lesions, 5-year OS ranged from 25% to 45% with S plus CT, and 29% to 57% with S plus RT plus CT. Conclusion Different treatment strategies may be indicated for intermediate-risk versus moderately high- or high-risk patients based on differential survival rates and rates of relapse. Use of trimodality treatment for all patients with intermediate-risk lesions may be excessive, since S plus CT resulted in 5-year OS of approximately 85%; however, 5-year disease-free survival rates with S plus CT were 78% (T1-2/N1) and 69%(T3/N0), indicating room for improvement.